Previous Article in Journal
Carbon, Water, and Light Use Efficiency Under Conservation Practice on Sloped Arable Land
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Resources
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/resources14060088
resources-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of Minimum Support Price for Economically Relevant Non-Timber Forest Products of Buxa Tiger Reserve in Foothills of Eastern Himalaya, India

by
Trishala Gurung
1,
Avinash Giri
1,
Arun Jyoti Nath
2,
Gopal Shukla
3 and
Sumit Chakravarty
1,*
1
Department of Forestry, Uttar Banga Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Pundibari 736 165, India
2
Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, Assam University, Silchar 788 011, India
3
Department of Forestry, North Eastern Hill University, Tura Campus, Tura 794 002, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Resources 2025, 14(6), 88; https://doi.org/10.3390/resources14060088 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 1 March 2025 / Revised: 8 May 2025 / Accepted: 22 May 2025 / Published: 25 May 2025
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study was carried out at 10 randomly selected fringe villages of Buxa Tiger Reserve (BTR) in the Terai region of West Bengal, India through personal interviews with 100 randomly selected respondents. The study documented 102 non-timber forest products (NTFPs) that were utilized throughout the year. In the local weekly market, 28 NTFPs were found to be traded by the collectors. The study shows that without proper price mechanisms and marketing channels; the residents cannot obtain fair prices for their products. The study found only 10 NTFPs that were prominently traded with the involvement of middlemen and traders along with the royalty imposed by the State Forest Department. The MSPs computed for these nine NTFPs were 25–200% higher than the prices the collectors were selling to the traders. The nationalization of NTFPs through MSPs will help their effective marketing, ensuring an adequate income for the collectors, which will lead to their sustainable harvest and conservation through participatory forest management. Introducing MSPs for NTFPs with an efficient procurement network can advance the economic status of the inhabitants. We recommend increasing the inhabitants’ capacity to collect, store, process, and market NTFPs with active policy, institutional, and infrastructural support.

1. Introduction

About a quarter of the world’s population, the majority of whom are indigenous forest communities, directly or indirectly depend on forests [1,2,3,4,5]. About 150–200 million people belonging to indigenous groups in over 70 countries, mainly in the tropics, depend on non-timber forest products (NTFPs) [6,7]. India has an indigenous population of 42 million, with 60% living in forest areas [1,2,8,9,10,11,12], and about 800 species are consumed as wild, edible plants [13]. In the Indian sub-Himalayan region, the forest fringe communities of Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary, Gorumara National Park, Buxa Tiger Reserve (BTR), Jaldapara National Park, and other protected areas are dependent on NTFPs for their livelihood sustenance [1,2,14].
NTFPs are products and services that are mainly collected from forests and other tree-based systems [15,16]. Globally, the reported value of NTFPs was about USD 7.71 billion in 2015 [4]. NTFPs are key resources for these communities in terms of their socio-cultural and economic well-being, generating employment and income, alleviating poverty and drudgery, granting a dignified life, and providing natural insurance during periods of scarcity [3,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. Research studies related to NTFPs, their collection and quantity, and their impact on livelihoods are often carried out but rarely focus on their economic importance, market value, or marketing mechanisms [1,2,27,28,29]. Although NTFPs have been recognized as valuable for people’s sustenance, their economic value is rarely considered in forest planning or in assessing gross domestic product [4,5,30,31,32,33]. Objective valuation studies involving and based on the preferences of local users are the first step in correcting omissions and misunderstandings involving NTFPs [34].
The BTR is a storehouse of NTFP resources and surrounded by indigenous community settlements. Previous works studying the utilization pattern of NTFPs from the region reported a price gap between NTFPs sold by collectors and those in the local markets but did not report the minimum support price (MSP) of NTFPs [1]. We also did not find any NTFP markets in our study area that were organized or regulated [35,36,37,38]. The process for NTFP trading still remains traditional with negligible trading. Few collectors are involved and they generally do not worry about the extracted quantity of their produce; instead, they look for quick sales of their product without the use of any measuring tools, such as weights or balances [38,39,40]. These fringe communities mostly trade their collections in their nearby weekly local markets (locally known as “haat-bazaar”). The traders visit these local markets and purchase NTFPs from the collectors at the lowest possible price with no standard norms set. NTFP collectors are mainly located in remote areas and are reported to have been cheated by traders [38]. Due to their need for hard cash, the collectors sell their NTFP collections under the terms and conditions dictated by their purchaser. Traditional markets are a hub for indigenous communities to earn hard cash for NTFPs and collections through sales [41,42,43,44]. Additionally, no data sources have been found, and even the State Forest Department lacks data. Local markets of NTFPs are generally ignored by the government and development agencies [19,20].
The importance of NTFPs is now increasingly gaining global attention in academics and policy [45,46,47,48]. The Indian Forest Rights Act 2006 recognized indigenous and other local people’s right to own, access, collect, use, and dispose of minor forest products, yet those who are dependent on forests remain underprivileged and impoverished [49]. Therefore, the fixation of MSPs for NTFPs will provide appropriate remuneration and insurance for the collectors in the face of a decline in the market prices of their products. Collectors will be free to sell their products in the open market or to the government at the MSP, depending on what is more profitable economically and ecologically [47,50,51]. Considering the diversity of NTFPs and their economic potential among the forest fringe communities of the BTR, the present study was conducted to create baseline data to assess the price gap between the producers and nearby markets with an attempt to estimate the MSP of some important NTFPs. Such information will be helpful in making these marketing channels smoother, ensuring that the local communities obtain a fair price for their collections.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description

The present study was carried out in the forest villages of BTR in the Terai zone of West Bengal, India. BTR is a storehouse of NTFP resources and is surrounded by settlements of diverse ethnic groups of indigenous communities, with Nepali people being predominant in villages that were established over a century ago [52]. The Tiger Reserve is situated in the Alipurduar district of West Bengal. Its topographical situation and environmental factors make it an excellent habitat for tigers and a large variety of wild flora and fauna. Furthermore, it is situated at the foot of the Darjeeling Himalayas and is a part of the IUCN-recognized Himalayan Biodiversity Hotspot [53].
After the declaration of Tiger Reserve, the Buxa forest came under the jurisdiction of the Wild Life Protection Act 1972; BTR became a sanctuary as well as a National Park and thus part of the flagship conservation program ‘Project Tiger’ in India [54]. The Reserve lies between 26°30′ and 26°55′ N latitudes and 89°20′ and 89°55′ E longitudes. Temperature varies from 15 °C to 39 °C, and rainfall varies from 3570 mm to 5600 mm. The lowest point is 125 m and the highest point is 1750 m above mean sea level [55]. The study area experiences three distinct seasons: summer (March–June), monsoon season (July–October), and winter (November–February). The forest is primarily tropical moist deciduous and is dominated by Sal tree (Shorea robusta), while evergreen, semi-evergreen, and riverine forest, scrub, and grasslands are also found, along with plantations of Sal, Teak (Tectona grandis), Jarul (Lagerstroemia reginae), and mixed plantations of native trees [56,57]. It has a network of many perennial and seasonal rivers, which are water sources for wild animals and plants. BTR is also an international elephant migration corridor [58]. There are 37 officially recognized forest villages in BTR with 50–175 households in each village. The diverse ethnic groups living in and around BTR comprise Rava, Garo, Mechia, Oraon, Madesia (Santhal), Rajbanshi, Nepali, Bhutia, and Bengalis [59,60]. These communities have distinct cultures and beliefs and depend on forest for their livelihood (www.Alipuarduar.gov.in (accessed on 20 June 2020)).

2.2. Sampling Design

Multi-stage random sampling protocol was adopted in the present study [1,2]. Considering the diversity of NTFPs and their economic potential among forest fringe communities, the study area BTR was purposively selected. The villages and households in the villages were randomly selected without replacement using chits drawn from exhaustive lists. Thus, from the 37 BTR villages, 10 villages were selected (about 30% of the total villages), and finally, from these selected villages, 100 households were selected for the study (10% of the total households in a selected village). The names of the villages with the total number of households and sample sizes are given in Table 1.

2.3. The Questionnaire

A semi-structured questionnaire was designed and developed [1,2,61,62,63] with sections on the socio-economic profile and diversity of the respondents and the utilization and marketing of NTFPs. In each selected village, before starting the interview, a few days were devoted to establishing rapport with the villagers, understanding the area and its people, and acquiring institutional and communication channels to meet the study’s needs. In addition, an outline of the synoptic background of the NTFP users out of the concerned villagers were also obtained, which helped construct the working tour.
Prior to final data collection, the questionnaire was discussed with an expert in the field of forestry, extension, economics, and statistics [62,63]. A relevancy test for the questions was conducted and opinion statements were gathered by the experts to ensure the validity of opinion scales. The statements with more than 75% relevancy were selected for final study. A reliability test was also taken by split-half method, and it was seen that the correlation between the odd- and even-numbered opinion statements was more than 0.80. According to our experience conducting pre-tests, necessary modifications were made to the language of the questionnaire.

2.4. Field Data Collection

The data were collected through personal interviews with the help of the final constructed questionnaire. The interview respondents were the primary member in each selected household responsible for collecting NTFPs. The respondents were interviewed in their local dialect/language with the help of an enumerator, and their responses were documented in English according to a schedule. We selected a literate Nepali-speaking enumerator among the locals who was also well-versed in Hindi. The researchers themselves carried out the interview. Majority of the respondents were Nepali-speaking and understood Hindi. The mother-tongue of our lead speaker was Nepali, and all authors were well-versed in Hindi. The respondents were also asked about the selling price of the NTFPs that they sell. We also enquired about the price of NTFPs in the nearby local weekly market, asking the collectors and the vendors/traders. The difference in both prices was compared to perform an economic evaluation of the NTFPs. NTFPs, including mainly vegetables, fruit, spices, folk medicines, and animal-based NTFPs (fish, honey, and snails), were sold directly as retail to local consumers. Other NTFPs, like fungus, decorative items, artifacts, broom grass, and rope material, were traded wholesale through middlemen. These middlemen sell the NTFPs to traders in nearby towns. The difference in the selling price to the middleman and procured price of the traders was documented.

2.5. Minimum Support Price

MSP following Sharma et al. [49] was calculated for NTFPs in instances in which middlemen and traders were involved and the State Forest Department also imposed a royalty based on the cost of the collection after adjusting for the macroeconomic factors.
Cost of collection per kilogram = C1 + C2 + C3, where:
C1 = Estimated cost of labor (the cost of efforts was estimated using typical MGNREGA rates as a benchmark). MGNREGA is Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 of India, which ensures 100 days of employment in a year.
C2 = Paid-out cost (costs of carrying and storing NTFPs, transportation costs, insurance premiums, and any other material costs are factored into the paid-out cost calculation).
C3 = Premium for knowledge/skill, owner’s royalty, and sustainability.
MSP = Cost of collection + adjustment of CPI difference.
In accordance with Section 3(1) C of the Forest Rights Act and Section 4(m) 2 of Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act or PESA, owner’s royalties have been established for each NTFP to acknowledge the ownership rights of tribes. The cost of regenerating or planting the species, the expense of protecting it, and the cost dependent on the resource’s abundance or scarcity have all been considered when calculating the owner’s royalty. Inflation is adjusted by comparing the base price to that same variation in the consumer price index for agricultural labor (CPI-Agri labor). To gather NTFPs from the forest, the collectors travelled 0–5 km and worked 1–7 h a day. Cost paid for each NTFP was estimated using the following parameters:
Cost of carrying and storing the NTFP products/collections.
Cost of transporting the NTFP products/collections to the first point of sale.
Monthly insurance premium (Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana) paid by the collector.
Any other material cost involved.
The owner’s royalty was also considered while estimating the MSP of NTFPs. The NTFP collector is the owner of the MFP as per Section 3(1) c of the Forest Rights Act 2006 for the purpose of access, collection, processing, trade, and marketing. This is a mechanism to recognize the ownership rights of NTFP collectors and recognize them as more than a laborer in NTFP collection and trade. Owner’s royalty was considered as the royalty paid by the middleman/trader to the State Forest Department, as the NTFP collectors sell their products either to a middleman or to a trader. In BTR, the royalty charged by the Forest Department during the study period was INR 30 per kilogram for Golden fungus and INR 10–15 per kilogram of other NTFPs traded. Generally, royalty charges were estimated considering the following parameters:
Plantation of the species: Cost of planting a sapling of the given species, i.e., assisted natural regeneration (ANR), which means providing an ecological environment to grow naturally regenerated seedlings by protecting them from fire, grazing, and other human interventions;
-
Safeguarding cost: The notional cost of efforts as per government (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act rates, i.e., INR 18.56 per h) to monitor and guard the plant throughout the year with weekly or monthly frequency;
-
Abundance/scarcity resource cost is the opportunity cost of the naturally abundant or scarce resource, in which the weightage for an abundant resource is considered to be in the range of 10–20% and weightage for a scarcely available resource is considered to be in the range of 20–33% of the cost of regeneration plus safeguarding cost, which was decided through consultative process considering the potential stock of NTFPs in India [49].

2.6. Demographic Information

The socio-economic profile (gender, age, education, occupation, and monthly household income) of the respondents was documented following Lepcha et al. [1,2]. The educational status of the respondents was documented as the number of years spent by the respondents in the pursuit of formal education. Occupation of the respondents was divided into four classes: farmer; ensured daily wage worker, i.e., under MGNREGA; daily wage worker, i.e., under act other than MGNREGA; and self-employed worker involved in tourism. BTR is a popular tourist destination. Respondents offered homestay arrangements for tourists and were also engaged in camping and other adventure tourism. Monthly total household income and income from NTFP sales were documented. The income generated by a household in a month from all possible sources, like farming, business, services, NTFPs, and any others, was documented as total monthly household income in Indian national rupee (INR).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Socio-Economic Profile

The socio-economic profile of the respondents is given in Table 2.
The age of the respondents was in the range of 20–78 years. More than half of the respondents were male. Most respondents either had no formal education or had attended up to 1–5 years of formal education. About one-third of the respondents primarily depended on farming for their livelihood, 26% were daily workers paid according to MGNREGA, 18% worked in the tourism sector, and 18% were daily paid workers. The respondent households earned a total monthly income of INR 2000–45,000, to which the contribution of NTFPs was 0–80%. The monthly household income of the BTR forest fringe communities and the contribution of NTFPs to their total monthly income were similar to that reported from Jaldapara National Park in the Terai region of West Bengal, India [1,2]. However, income through NTFP sales and its contribution to the household’s cash income vary across geographical regions, income levels, and castes/communities [64,65,66,67]. Furthermore, it was found that the households of BTR sold the excess NTFPs for cash income only after fulfilling their domestic requirements, which was about 60% or more of their NTFP collections [68]. Many earlier studies have stressed the need to profile the socio-economic status of forest fringe communities to formulate strategies for empowering them through NTFPs [1,2,67,69,70,71].

3.2. NTFP Diversity

The diversity status of NTFPs in the BTR was represented by 102 species from 56 families and 88 genera. Of the total, 86 species were plant-based, nine species were fungal-based, and seven species were animal-based (Figure 1).
Several studies have reported NTFP diversity ranging from 100 to 334 species from Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary, Gorumara National Park, Buxa Tiger Reserve, Jaldapara National Park, and other protected areas in the Terai region of West Bengal [1,2,15,72,73,74]. Similar results are also available from other regions of Bengal [75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82], Sikkim [83,84], and elsewhere [85,86,87,88]. The diversity of NTFPs varies from region to region and forest to forest due to variation in locality factors and associated levels of indigenous knowledge [16]. The documentation of forest resources, particularly NTFPs, has increased over the past few decades due to their environmental, socio-economic, spiritual, and cultural benefits [1,2,89,90,91,92].
In the Himalayan region, NTFPs were mostly documented from reserve forests [27,28,93,94]. In the sub-Himalayan region, mainly medicinal plants were inventoried and rarely other forms of NTFPs [95,96,97,98]. Due to the economic and population growth in the sub-Himalayan region, the demand for various forest products has increased, leading to their unsustainable exploitation [99]. Therefore, there is a need for participatory NTFP documentation for its sustainable management and utilization [52,100]. Providing adequate and pro-people policy support empowering and addressing the poverty of rural and forest fringe communities will ensure the active participation of these communities to achieve a sustainable livelihood and NTFP conservation [24]. Participatory documentation of NTFPs will aid in mapping these resources efficiently and adequately, which will be crucial to establishing procurement and value-added centers at minor market levels, improving the income of these communities, and ensuring sustainable harvest [49]. MSPs will encourage the BTR fringe communities to sustainably harvest NTFPs, ensuring their conservation, while improving their livelihoods through increased and regular income [49,99,101]. Providing MSPs for NTFPs will also encourage participatory forest management [28]. Additionally, timber-based forest industry can be diversified, forming an NTFP-based cottage industry, which would increase employment, particularly that of rural youths [102,103].

3.3. Economic Valuation of NTFPs

Of the total listed NTFP species of the BTR, 28 species of NTFPs were prominently traded in the local weekly market either directly in small quantities by the collector themselves or indirectly in bulk to the middleman. The NTFPs traded were mostly of plant origin (19 species), and the remaining were of animal and fungal origin. The prominent NTFPs traded were animal products, decorative artifacts (like golden and spongy fungi), broomsticks, and fuelwood. In the weekly local markets of the BTR, tradable NTFPs or their products were found to be fish, mushrooms, fuelwood, broomsticks, twigs, fruit, flowers, rhizomes, tubers, pods, seeds, and even whole plants. The price of NTFPs and other details are presented in Table 3.
These NTFPs were traded according to the metric system or locally available procedures using bundles, bunches, and numbers. The collectors, compared to the traders, sell NTFPs of animal origin INR 35–100 cheaper and of fungal origin INR 5–60 cheaper. Similarly, bamboo shoot was traded for INR 30 cheaper by the collectors than the vendors in the market (at INR 120). Honey was also available locally and traded unprocessed, thus fetching a price INR 100 lower for the collector than the selling price of INR 350 of the trader. Broomsticks and firewood were also priced INR 50 and INR 100 lower by the collector than the price sold by the trader, i.e., INR 650/1000 sticks and INR 600/pile, respectively.
Only nine NTFPs in the BTR were prominently traded with the involvement of middlemen or traders and with a royalty imposed by the State Forest Department, for which the MSP was estimated (Table 3). The suggested MSPs were 25–200% higher than the prices at which the collectors were selling the NTFPs to the traders (Table 4).
The NTFP collectors in the study area earn less from their NTFP products than the middleman or the trader at the market. In the absence of proper price mechanisms and marketing channels for NTFPs, collectors were deprived of a fair price for their collections or products. There were no marketing opportunities in the fringe villages of the BTR. The BTR fringe villages lack a proper communication network, and, thus, they are at the mercy of the middleman with no other option. They are forced to sell their products, cannot obtain the desired return from NTFP sales, and are cheated on the pretext of the products having moisture or impurities [101]. The collectors thus seem to earn merely the collection charges of their NTFPs, which have a higher market value. Most of the profit from NTFP products traded in the BTR thus goes to middlemen, contractors, or traders. A similar dire situation involving NTFP collectors has also been reported in Arunachal Pradesh [66].
Ensuring MSPs will enhance collectors’ income and encourage them to participate in forest management for the sustainable harvesting of NTFPs, aiding in their conservation in the wild [28,49,101]. Additionally, this will diversify the timber-based forest industry into an NTFP-based cottage industry, improving employment opportunities and empowering the rural and indigenous communities [102,103]. However, NTFP collectors and their local institutions need to be empowered through capacity building in terms of collection, storage, processing, and marketing to ensure the fair trade of their products and enhanced profit from NTFP trade [104,105,106]. This requires identifying and promoting detailed silvicultural knowledge of potential NTFP species, including developing a management plan for the target species at large [107,108]. In addition, this plan might include introducing these species in farming systems through agroforestry [109].
Most respondents in the BTR either had no formal education or were educated up to primary school. Hence, the participatory forest resource management and capacity building of these indigenous communities in regards to NTFP processing and marketing, along with suitable infrastructure and institutional support, can empower them to live a dignified life [1,2,104]. For instance, the active participation of the Forest Protection Committee (FPC) in the BTR with the West Bengal Forest Department in the marketing of NTFPs needs to be encouraged, and the collection of NTFPs should be exempt from payment [104]. Similar to how the marketing rights of Sal (Shorea robusta) seed and Kendu leaves (Diospyros melanoxylon) have been granted previously, some NGOs, cooperatives, and government marketing agencies can also be granted the marketing rights of NTFPs in the BTR. However, for this system to be successful, the residents of the forest villages need to be included as members of these agencies. NTFP auctions and fares need to be organized at the BTR, while ensuring infrastructural support is given to storage and marketing centers [1,2]. The above-suggested MSPs for some selected NTFPs of the BTR can be stepping stones towards the nationalization of NTFPs. Introducing an MSP for NTFPs in the BTR has the potential to uplift the lives of its inhabitants and provide them with ‘natural insurance’ [1,2,69,103,110].

4. Conclusions

The present study identified 102 NTFPs of fungal, plant, and animal origin from the study area. Among these documented NTFPs, those of plant origin were prominently used. Among these documented NTFPs, we found 28 NTFPs of fungal, animal, and plant origin that were prominently traded in the local weekly market. These included fish, krill, honey, fruiting bodies of golden and spongy fungi, edible mushrooms, broomsticks, seeds, flowers, and fruit. Among these prominently traded NTFPs, royalties were charged for 10 NTFPs by the State Forest Department. We found these NTFPs with royalties were only procured by the middleman or traders with the collectors in bulk. The MSPs computed for these 10 NTFPs were 25–200% higher than the prevailing local market price. This indicates that the collectors were not getting their rightful due in NTFP trading. MSPs thus can ensure a fair income to the BTR’s NTFP collectors, which can encourage them to participate in forest management and practice sustainable harvesting. Ensuring a fair income to the NTFP collectors can diversify the forest-based industry into an NTFP-based cottage industry. We recommend institutional support for advocacy on traditional value-added techniques for improving the market value of NTFPs. More systematic documentation and analyses on various aspects of NTFP collection, utilization, post-harvest, and marketing are also required.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.C.; Methodology, S.C., G.S., T.G. and A.G.; Validation, S.C., G.S. and A.J.N.; Formal Analysis, T.G. and A.G.; Investigation, T.G. and A.G.; Resources, S.C.; Data Curation, T.G. and A.G.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, T.G. and S.C.; Writing—Review and Editing, G.S., A.J.N. and S.C.; Visualization, S.C.; Supervision, S.C. and G.S.; Project Administration, S.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The present paper was part of a research study by the first author as a preliminary requirement for an M. Sc. Forestry degree. We do not have any ethics approval committee at our university, but rather an advisory committee to approve student research and ensure it follows all protocols. We informed the respondents about the work prior to the study and verbally assured them that the information collected was to be used solely for research purposes. After their verbal consent was given, we undertook the interviews.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lepcha, L.D.; Shukla, V.G.; Chakravarty, S. Livelihood dependency on NTFPs among Forest dependent communities. Indian For. 2020, 146, 603–612. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lepcha, L.D.; Shukla, G.; Pala, N.A.; Vineeta Pal, P.K.; Chakravarty, S. Contribution of NTFPs on livelihood of forest fringe communities in Jaldapara National Park, India. J. Sustain. For. 2018, 38, 213–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Shackleton, C.M.; Pullanikkatil, D. Considering the links between non-timber forest products and poverty alleviation. In Moving Out of Poverty through Using Forest Products: Personal Stories; Pullanikkatil, D., Shackleton, C.M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 15–28. [Google Scholar]
  4. FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main report; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. FAO. The State of the World’s Forests 2022. Forest Pathways for Green Recovery and Building Inclusive, Resilient and Sustainable Economics; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  6. Abhijit Dey, A.D.; De, J.N. Ethnoveterinary uses of medicinal plants by aboriginals of Purulia district, West Bengal, India. Int. J. Bot. 2010, 6, 433–440. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bauri, T.; Mukherjee, A. Documentation of traditional knowledge and indigenous use of Non-Timber Forest Products in Durgapur Forest Range of Burdwan District, West Bengal. Ecoscan 2013, 3, 69–74. [Google Scholar]
  8. Sadashivappa, P.; Suryaprakash, S.; Vijaya Krishna, V. Participation behavior of indigenous people in non-timber forest products extraction and marketing in the dry deciduous forests of South India. In Proceedings of the Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development, Tropentag University of, Bonn, Bonn, Germany, 11–13 October 2006. [Google Scholar]
  9. Yeshodharan, K.; Sujana, K.A. Wild edible plants traditionally used by the tribes in the Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala, India. Nat. Prod. Radiance 2007, 6, 74–80. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bhatia, N.K.; Yousuf, M. Reassuring livelihood functions of the forests to their dependents: Adoption of collaborative forest management system over joint forest management regime in India. Ann. For. Res. 2013, 56, 377–388. [Google Scholar]
  11. Islam, M.A.; Quli, S.M.S.; Rai, R.; Sofi, P.A. Livelihood contributions of forest resources to the tribal communities of Jharkhand. Indian J. Fundam. Appl. Life Sci. 2013, 3, 131–144. [Google Scholar]
  12. Pandey, A.; Tripathi, Y.; Kumar, A. Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) for sustained livelihood challenges and strategies. Res. J. For. 2016, 10, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bandyopadhyay, S.; Mukherjee, S.K. Wild edible plants of Koch Bihar district, West Bengal, India. Nat. Prod. Radiance 2009, 8, 64–72. [Google Scholar]
  14. Shukla, G.; Chakravarty, S. Ethnobotanical plant use of Chilapatta Reserved Forest in West Bengal. Indian For. 2012, 138, 1116–1124. [Google Scholar]
  15. Saha, G.; Biswas, R.; Das, A.P. Survey for NTFP plants of the Gorumara National Park in the Jalpaiguri district of West Bengal (India). Pleione 2014, 8, 367–373. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bauri, T.; Palit, D.; Mukherjee, A. Livelihood dependency of rural people utilizing non-timber forest product (NTFPs) in a moist deciduous forest zone, West Bengal, India. Int. J. Adv. Res. 2015, 3, 1030–1040. [Google Scholar]
  17. Shackleton, C.M.; Shackleton, S. The importance of non-timber forest products in rural livelihood security and as safety nets: A review of evidence from South Africa. South Afr. J. Sci. 2004, 100, 658. [Google Scholar]
  18. Shackleton, C.M.; Shackleton, S.E.; Buiten, E.; Bird, N. The importance of dry woodlands and forests in rural livelihoods and poverty alleviation in South Africa. For. Policy Econ. 2007, 9, 558–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shackleton, S.; Shanley, P.; Ndoye, O. Invisible but viable: Local markets for non- timber forest products. Int. For. Rev. 2007, 9, 697–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shackleton, S.; Campbell, B.; Lotz-Sisitka, H.; Shackleton, C.M. Links between the local trade in natural products, livelihoods and poverty alleviation in a semi-arid region of South Africa. World Dev. 2008, 3, 505–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shackleton, S.; Paumgarten, F.; Kassa, H.; Husselman, M.; Zida, M. Opportunities for enhancing poor women’s socio-economic empowerment in the value chains of three Africa Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs). Int. For. Rev. 2011, 13, 136–151. [Google Scholar]
  22. Shackleton, S.; Shackleton, C.M.; Shanley, P. Non-Timber Forest Products in the Global Context; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ghosal, S. Importance of non-timber forest products in native household economy. J. Geogr. Reg. Plan. 2011, 4, 159–168. [Google Scholar]
  24. Shackleton, C.M.; Pandey, A.K. Positioning non-timber forest products on the development agenda. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 38, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nguyen, V.T.; Lv, H.J.; Vu Thi, H.T.; Zhang, B. Determinants of Non-Timber Forest Product Planting, Development, and Trading: Case Study in Central Vietnam. Forests 2020, 11, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pimentel, D.; McNair, M.; Buck, L.; Pimentel, M.; Kamil, J. The value of forests to world food security. J. Hum. Ecol. 1997, 25, 91–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Corbridge, S.; Kumar, S. Community, corruption, landscape: Tales from the tree trade. Political Geogr. 2002, 21, 765–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mahapatra, A.K.; Tewari, D.D. Importance of non-timber forest products in the economics valuation of dry deciduous forests of India. For. Policy Econ. 2005, 7, 455–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dawson, I.K.; Leakey, R.; Clement, C.R.; Weber, J.C.; Cornelius, J.P.; Roshetko, J.M.; Vinceti, B.; Kalinganire, A.; Tchoundjeu, Z.; Masters, E.; et al. The management of tree genetic resources and the livelihoods of rural communities in the tropics: Non-timber forest products, smallholder agroforestry practices and tree commodity crops. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 333, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Van Andel, T.R. Non-Timber Forest Products of the North-West District of Guyana; Tropenbos Guyana Program: Georgetown, Guyana, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  31. Tewari, D.D.; Campbell, J.Y. Increased development of non-Timber Forest products in India: Some issues and concerns. Unasylva 1996, 47, 26–31. [Google Scholar]
  32. Vidale, E.; Riccardo, D.R.; Lovric, M.; Pettenella, D. NWFP in the International Market: Current Situation and Trends. Star Tree- Multipurpose Trees and Non-Wood Forest Products: A Challenge and Opportunity. EU FP7 Project no. 311919, Deliverable 3.1. 2014. Available online: https://star-tree.eu/images/deliverables/WP3/D3%201-Int_trade_final.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2020).
  33. Lahiri, D. Policy Gap, Issues, Challenges and Methodology in Price Fixation of Minor Forest Produce; The ICFAI University: Dehradun, India, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  34. Shiel, D.; Wunder, S. The value of Tropical Forests to Local Communities: Complications, Caveats and Caution. Conserv. Ecol. 2002, 6, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yadav, M.; Misra, S. Role of Role of Non-Timber Forest Products-Based Enterprises in Sustaining Incomes of Forest Dwellers; Indian Institute of Management: Ahmadabad, India, 2010; pp. 77–81. [Google Scholar]
  36. Yadav, M.; Misra, S. Sustainable development: A role for market information systems for non-timber forest products. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 20, 128–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Adam, Y.O.; Pretzsch, J.; Pettenella, D. Contribution of non-timber forest products livelihood strategies to rural development in drylands of Sudan. Agric. Syst. 2013, 117, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kala, C.P. Harvesting and Supply Chain Analysis of Ethnobotanical Species in the Pachmarhi Biosphere Reserve of India. Am. J. Environ. Prot. 2013, 1, 20–27. [Google Scholar]
  39. Saxena, N.C. Livelihood Diversification and Non-Timber Forest Products in Orissa: Wider Lessons on the Scope for Policy Change? Overseas Development Institute: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wagh, V.V.; Jain, K.A.; Kadel, C. Role of non-timber forest products in the livelihood of tribal community of Jhabua district (M.P). Biol. Forum-Int. J. 2010, 2, 45–48. [Google Scholar]
  41. Williams, V.L.; Balkwill, K.; Witkowski, E.T.F. Unravelling the commercial market for medicinal plant and plant parts on the Witwaters and South Africa. Econ. Bot. 2000, 54, 310–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mertz, O.; Lykke, A.M.; Reenberg, A. Importance and seasonality of vegetable consumption and marketing in Burkina Faso. Econ. Bot. 2001, 55, 276–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yadav, M.; Dugaya, D. Non-timber forest products certification in India: Opportunities and challenges. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2013, 15, 567–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Janse, G.; Ottitsch, A. Factors influencing the role of non-wood forest products and services. For. Policy Econ. 2005, 7, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sawian, J.T.; Jeeva, S.; Lyndem, F.G.; Mishra, B.P.; Laloo, F.G. Wild edible plants of Meghalaya, Northeast India. Nat. Prod. Radiance 2007, 6, 410–426. [Google Scholar]
  46. Chilalo, M.; Wiersum, K.F. The role of non-timber forest products for livelihood diversification in Southwest Ethiopia. Ethiop. e-J. Res. Innov. Foresight 2011, 3, 44–59. [Google Scholar]
  47. Jhonson, T.S.; Agarwal, R.K.; Agarwal, A. Non-timber forest products as a source of livelihood option for forest dwellers: Role of society, herbal industries and government agencies. Curr. Sci. 2013, 104, 440–443. [Google Scholar]
  48. Chakravarty, S.; Bhutia, K.D.; Suresh, C.P.; Shukla, G.; Pala, N.A. A review on diversity, conservation and nutrition of wild edible fruits. J. Appl. Nat. Sci. 2016, 8, 2346–2353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sharma, J.V.; Gokhale, Y.; Jain, N.A.; Lele, Y.; Tyagi, A.; Bhattacharya, S. Methodology for determining minimum support price for minor forest produce in India. Indian For. 2018, 144, 604–610. [Google Scholar]
  50. Aditya, K.S.; Subash, S.P.; Praveen, K.V.; Nithyashree, M.L.; Bhuvana, N.; Sharma, A. Awareness about minimum support price and its impact on diversification decision of farmers in India. Asia Pac. Policy Stud. 2017, 4, 514–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chamberlain, J.L.; Cunningham, A.B.; Nasi, R. Diversity in forest management: Non-timber forest products and bush meat. Renew. Resour. J. 2004, 10, 11–19. [Google Scholar]
  52. Das, B.K. Growth and composition of ethnic groups in forest villages of Buxa Tiger Reserve, West Bengal. Indian For. 2005, 131, 504–518. [Google Scholar]
  53. Myers, N.; Mittermeier, R.A.; Mittermeier, C.G.; Da Fonseca, G.A.; Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 2000, 403, 853–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Debnath, B.; Bhattacharya, D. Reserve Forest and livelihood opportunities: A study on Buxa tiger reserve. Int. J. Multidiscip. Res. Dev. 2016, 3, 121–128. [Google Scholar]
  55. Roy, P.B.; Shah, R. Economic loss analysis of crops yields due to elephant raiding: A case study of Buxa Tiger Reserve (West), West Bengal, India. J. Econ. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 10, 83–88. [Google Scholar]
  56. Champion, H.G.; Seth, S.K. A Revised Survey of the Forest Types of India; Manager of Publications: New Delhi, India, 1968; 404p. [Google Scholar]
  57. Sivakumar, S.; Varghese, J.; Prakash, V. Abundance of birds in different habitats in Buxa Tiger Reserve, West Bengal, India. Forktail 2006, 22, 128–133. [Google Scholar]
  58. Das, B.K. Flood disasters and forest villagers in Sub-Himalayan Bengal. Econ. Political Wkly. 2009, 44, 71–76. [Google Scholar]
  59. Prakash, V.; Sivakumar, S.; Varghese, J. Avifauna as Indicators of Habitat Quality in Buxa Tiger Reserve, Final Report; 2000–2001, Submitted to West Bengal Forest Department, Mumbai, India; Bombay Natural History Society: Mumbai, India, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  60. Das, B.K. Losing Biodiversity, Impoverishing Forest Villagers: Analyzing Forest Policies in the Context of Flood Disaster in a National Park of Sub Himalayan Bengal, India; Occasional Paper, 35; Institute of Development Studies: Kolkata, India, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  61. Frechtling, J.; Sharp, L. User-Friendly Handbook for Mixed Method Evaluations. Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Division of Research, Evaluation and Communication, National Science Foundation 1997.
  62. Dey, T.; Pala, N.A.; Shukla, G.; Pal, P.K.; Das, G.; Chakravarty, S. Climate change perceptions and response strategies of forest fringe communities in Indian Eastern Himalaya. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2017, 20, 925–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Dey, T.; Pala, N.A.; Shukla, G.; Pal, P.K.; Chakravarty, S. Perception on impact of climate change on forest ecosystem in protected area of West Bengal. J. For. Environ. Sci. 2017, 33, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Behera, M.C.; Nath, M.R. Financial valuation of non-timber forest products flow from tropical dry deciduous forests in Boudh district, Orissa. Int. J. Farm Sci. 2012, 2, 83–94. [Google Scholar]
  65. Dolui, G.; Chatterjee, S.; Chatterjee, N.D. The importance of non-timber forest products in tribal livelihood: A case study of Santal Community in Purulia District, West Bengal. Indian J. Geogr. Environ. 2014, 13, 110–120. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sharma, D.; Tiwari, B.K.; Chaturvedi, S.S.; Diengdoh, E. Status, utilization and economic valuation of Non-Timber Forest Products of Arunachal Pradesh, India. J. For. Environ. Sci. 2015, 31, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Alex, A.; Vidyasagaran, K.; Prema, A.; Kumar, V.S. Analyzing the opportunities among the tribes of the Western Ghats in Kerala. Stud. Tribes Tribals 2016, 14, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Prasad, B.N.; Forest Industries Development Group: Asia Pacific Region. Regional Non-Wood Forest Product Industries; FAO: Kualalampur, Malaysia, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  69. Verma, S.K.; Paul, S.K. Sustaining the non-timber forest products (NTFPs) based rural livelihood of tribal’s in Jharkhand: Issues and challenges. Jharkhand J. Dev. Manag. Stud. 2016, 14, 6865–6883. [Google Scholar]
  70. Baudron, F.; Durieux Chavarria, Y.J.; Remans, R.; Yang, K.; Sunderland, T. Indirect contributions of forests to dietary diversity in Southern Ethiopia. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ghosal, S.; Liu, J. Community Forest dependency: Dose distance matter? Indian For. 2017, 143, 397–404. [Google Scholar]
  72. Sarkar, A. Non-Timber Forest Products and Their Conservation in Buxa Tiger Reserve, West Bengal, India. Ph. D Thesis, University of North Bengal, Siliguri, India, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  73. Biswakarma, S.; Sarkar, B.C.; Shukla, G.; Pala, N.A.; Chakravarty, S. Traditional application of ethnomedicinal plants in Naxalbari area of West Bengal, India. Int. J. Usufruct Manag. 2015, 16, 36–42. [Google Scholar]
  74. Bose, D.; Ghosh, R.; Das (Sarkar), M.; Datta, T.; Biswas, H. Medicinal plants used by tribals in Jalpaiguri district, West Bengal, India. J. Med. Plants Stud. 2015, 3, 15–21. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sinhababu, A.; Banerjee, A. Ethno-botanical study of medicinal plants used by tribals of Bankura district, West Bengal, India. J. Med. Plants Stud. 2013, 1, 98–104. [Google Scholar]
  76. Chettri, D.; Moktan, S.; Das, A.P. Ethnobotanical studies on the Tea Garden workers of Darjeeling Hills. Pleione 2014, 8, 124–132. [Google Scholar]
  77. Mondal, T.; Samanta, S. An ethnobotanical survey on medicinal plants of Ghatal block, West Midnapur District, West Bengal, India. Int. J. Curr. Res. Biosci. Plant Biol. 2014, 1, 35–37. [Google Scholar]
  78. Sarkar, B.C.; Biswakarma, S.; Shukla, G.; Pala, N.A.; Chakravarty, S. Documentation and utilization pattern of ethnomedicinal plants in Darjeeling Himalayas, India. Int. J. Usufruct Manag. 2015, 16, 3–11. [Google Scholar]
  79. Raj, A.J.; Biswakarma, S.; Pala, N.A.; Shukla, G.; Vineeta Kumar, M.; Chakravarty, S.; Bussmann, R.W. Indigenous uses of ethnomedicinal plants among forest-dependent communities of northern Bengal, India. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomedicine 2018, 14, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Pala, N.A.; Sarkar, B.C.; Shukla, G.; Chettri, N.; Deb, S.; Bhat, J.A.; Chakravarty, S. Floristic composition and utilization of ethnomedicinal plant in homegardens of the eastern Himalaya. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomedicine 2019, 15, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Roy, M.; Sarkar, B.C.; Shukla, G.; Debnath, M.K.; Nath, A.J.; Bhat, J.A.; Chakravarty, S. Traditional homegardens and ethnomedicinal plants: Insights from the Indian Sub-Himalayan region. Trees For. People 2022, 8, 100236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Roy, M.; Sarkar, B.C.; Manohar, K.A.; Shukla, G.; Vineeta Nath, A.J.; Bhat, J.A.; Chakravarty, S. Fuelwood species diversity and consumption pattern in the homegardens from foothills of Indian Eastern Himalayas. Agrofor. Syst. 2022, 96, 453–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kumar, A.; Avasthe, R.K.; Shukla, G.; Pradhan, Y. Ethnobotanical edible plant biodiversity of Lepcha Tribes. Indian For. 2012, 138, 798–803. [Google Scholar]
  84. Uprety, Y.; Poudel, R.C.; Gurung, J.; Chettri, N.; Chaudhary, R.P. Traditional use and management of NTFPs in Kanchenjunga Landscape: Implications for conservation and livelihoods. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomedicine 2016, 12, 19–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Turreira-García, N.; Theilade, I.; Meilby, H.; Sørensen, M. Wild edible plant knowledge, distribution and transmission: A case study of the Achí Mayans of Guatemala. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomedicine 2015, 11, 52–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ahmad, K.; Pieroni, A. Folk knowledge of wild food plants among the tribal communities of Thakht-e-Sulaiman Hills, North-West Pakistan. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomedicine 2016, 12, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Geng, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Ranjitkar, S.; Huai, H.; Wang, Y. Traditional knowledge and its transmission of wild edibles used by the Naxi in Baidi Village, northwest Yunnan province. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomedicine 2016, 12, 10–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Shiracko, N.; Owuor, B.O.; Gakuubi, M.M.; Wanzala, W. A survey of ethnobotany of the Aba Wanga people in Kakamega county, western province of Kenya. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl. 2016, 15, 93–102. [Google Scholar]
  89. Alcorn, J.B. Huastec non-crop resource management. Hum. Ecol. 1981, 9, 395–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Alcorn, J.B. Some factors influencing botanical resource perception among the Huastec: Suggestion for ethnobotanical inquiry. J. Ethnobiol. 1981, 1, 221–230. [Google Scholar]
  91. Reddy, B.M. Wild edible plants of Chandrapur district, Maharashtra, India. J. Nat. Prod. Resour. 2012, 3, 110–117. [Google Scholar]
  92. Basumatary, N.; Teron, R.; Saikia, M. Ethnomedicinal practices of the Bodo-Kachari tribe of Karbi Anglong District of Assam. Int. J. Life Sci. Biotechnol. Pharma Res. 2014, 3, 161–167. [Google Scholar]
  93. Mallik, R.H. Sustainable management of non-timber forest products in Odisha: Some issues and options. Indian J. Agric. Econ. 2000, 55, 385–397. [Google Scholar]
  94. Chettri, N.; Sharma, E.; Lama, S.D. Non-timber forest produces utilization, distribution and status in a trekking corridor of Sikkim, India. Lyonia A J. Ecol. Appl. 2005, 1, 89–101. [Google Scholar]
  95. Maity, D.; Pradhan, N.; Chauhan, A.S. Folk uses of some medicinal plants from North Sikkim. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl. 2004, 3, 66–71. [Google Scholar]
  96. Hussain, S.; Hore, D.K. Collection and conservation of major medicinal plants of Darjeeling and Sikkim Himalayas. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl. 2007, 6, 352–357. [Google Scholar]
  97. Pradhan, B.K.; Badola, H.K. Seed germination response of populations of Swertia chirayita following periodical storage. Seed Technol. 2008, 30, 63–69. [Google Scholar]
  98. Bharati, K.A.; Sharma, B.L. Some ethnoveterinary plant records from Sikkim Himalayas. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl. 2010, 9, 344–346. [Google Scholar]
  99. Sharma, N.P. Managing the World Forest: Looking for Balance Between Conservation and Development; Kendall Hunt Publishing Company: Dubuque, IA, USA, 1992; 605p. [Google Scholar]
  100. Shankar, U.; Murali, K.S.; Shaanker, R.U.; Ganeshaiah, K.N.; Bawa, K.S. Extraction of non-timber forest producers in the forests of Biligiri Rangan hills, India. Econ. Bot. 1996, 50, 270–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Prasad, R.; Das, S.; Sinha, S. Value addition options for non-timber forest products at primary collector’s level. Int. For. Rev. 1999, 1, 17–21. [Google Scholar]
  102. Marles, R.J. Non-Timber Forest Products and Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge; North Central Research Station: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  103. Dattagupta, S.; Gupta, A.; Ghose, M. Non-Timber Forest Products of the Inner Line Reserve Forest, Cachar, Assam, India: Dependency and usage pattern of forest-dwellers. Assam Univ. J. Sci. Technol. Biol. Environ. Sci. 2010, 6, 21–27. [Google Scholar]
  104. Ghosal, S. The role of all marketing channels in NTFP business. J. Sustain. For. 2013, 31, 310–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Patra, S. Cross Boarder Trading of Kendu Leaf in Odisha. Asian J. Res. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2014, 4, 2–6. [Google Scholar]
  106. Ahmed, M.U.; Jana, S.K.; Roy, S.D. Marketing of non-timber forest products- a study in Paschim Medinipur district in West Bengal, India. Intercont. J. Mark. Res. Rev. 2016, 4, 330–337. [Google Scholar]
  107. Phillips, O. The potential of harvesting fruits in tropical rain forests: A new data from Amazonian Peru. Biol. Conserv. 1993, 2, 18–38. [Google Scholar]
  108. Maikhuri, R.K.; Semwal, R.L.; Singh, A.; Nautiyal, M.C. Wild fruits as a contribution to sustainable rural development: A case study from the Garhwal Himalaya. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 1994, 1, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Greene, S.M.; Hammett, A.L.; Kant, S. Non-timber forest products marketing systems and market players in southwest Virginia: Craft, medicinal and herbal, and specialty wood products. J. Sustain. For. 2000, 11, 19–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Shrivastava, V.K.; Anitha, D. Mapping of non-timber forest products using remote sensing and GIS. Int. Soc. Trop. Ecol. 2010, 51, 107–116. [Google Scholar]
Resources 14 00088 g001
Figure 1. Classification of NTFPs based on origin.
Figure 1. Classification of NTFPs based on origin.
Resources 14 00088 g001
Table 1. Total number of households and sampling size of the selected BTR villages.
Table 1. Total number of households and sampling size of the selected BTR villages.
Sr. No.Name of the VillageTotal HouseholdSample Size
1Pompu busty586
2Naya busty737
3Chettri line busty818
4Suntala bari busty16516
528 miles busty13513
629 miles busty11812
7Jayantia busty14314
8Bhutia busty919
9Sardar bazar838
10Ochulung busty687
Table 2. Socio-economic profile of the households in BTR.
Table 2. Socio-economic profile of the households in BTR.
Profile Classf (%)Statistics
Age (in years)
20–3019Range: 20–78; Mean: 44.94; SD: 14.87
30–4020
40–5016
50–6037
60–7011
70>3
Gender
Male53
Female47
Formal education (in years)
036
1–546
6–1216
>122
Monthly income (INR)
Low92Range: 2000–45,000; Mean: 9731; SD: 9553.5
Moderate8
High0
Monthly NTFP income (INR)
Low < 10%28Range: 0–80; Mean: 25%; SD: 0.24
Moderate 10–30%35
High > 30%37
Occupation
Farming33
Ensured daily wage worker26
Non-ensured daily wage worker23
Tourism18
f—frequency; INR—Indian national rupee.
Table 3. Traded NTFPs in the BTR with local and market values.
Table 3. Traded NTFPs in the BTR with local and market values.
SnVN/SNITHR (INR)MR (INR)
Animal-based
1Jhingay
Euphausia superba		Krill500/kg600/kg
2Samuk
Bellamya bengalensis		Snail50/kg85/kg
3Magur macha
Clarias batrachus		Fish400/kg600/kg
4Punthi
Puntius ticto		Fish100/kg200/kg
5Putka
Trigona sp.		Honey250/L350/L
Fungal-based
6Ful cheu (Golden fungus)
Flammulina spp.		Fruiting body100/kg130/kg
7Dhabray cheu (Spongy fungus) Morchella esculentaFruiting body30/kg35/kg
8Kalunge chew
Termitomyces clypeatus		Mushroom150/kg210/kg
9Kath cheu
Ganoderma lucidum		Mushroom100/kg130/kg
Plant-based
10Neem
Azadirachta indica		Fresh twigs10/bunch15/bunch
11Narkeli
Pterygota alata		Seed, flower20/kg30/kg
12Chaap
Magnolia pterocarpa		Dry flowers20/kg23/kg
13Lotho/Kusum
Baccaurea sapida		Fruit0.70/pc1/pc
14Phata lali
Aglaia hiernii		Seed10/kg13/kg
15Chikrasi
Chukrasia tabularis		Dry seed coat20/kg22/kg
16Odal
Sterculia villosa		 20/kg25/kg
17Ningro
Allantodia maxima		Twigs10/bunch15/bunch
18Laal latta laharaWp35/kg40/kg
19Ningura laharaWp35/kg40/kg
20Kucho
Thysanolaena latifolia		Broomstick600/1000 sticks650/1000
sticks
21Totola
Oroxylum indicum		Pod20/pod30/pod
22Jhut
Luffa aegyptica		Fruit10/pc20/strip
23Bel
Aegle marmelos		Twig, fruit5/bunch
7/fruit		8/bunch,
10/fruit
24Jungali haldi
Curcuma aromatica		Rhizome150/kg200/kg
25Tamba
Bambusa vulgaris		Young shoot90/kg120/kg
26Ghar tarul
Dioscorea deltoidea		Tuber80/kg110/kg
27Ban tarul
Dioscorea alata L.		Tuber80/kg100/kg
28Documented speciesFuel wood500/pile600/pile
Sn—serial number; VN—vernacular name (Nepali); SN—scientific name; IT—item traded; HR—household rate, i.e., the price at which the item was sold by the collector; MR—market rate, i.e., the price at which the item was sold by the trader.
Table 4. The suggested minimum support price for some prominent NTFPs.
Table 4. The suggested minimum support price for some prominent NTFPs.
NTFPHousehold Rate * (INR)Suggested MSP (INR)
Ful cheu (Golden fungus)100/kg130/kg
Dhabray cheu (Spongy fungus)30/kg48/kg
Phata lali10/kg30/kg
Narkeli20/kg30/kg
Kucho (Broomsticks)0.6/stick1.4/stick
Odal20/kg25/kg
Chaap20/kg25/kg
Laal latta lahara35/kg47/kg
Ningura lahara35/kg47/kg
* The price at which the item is sold by the collector.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gurung, T.; Giri, A.; Nath, A.J.; Shukla, G.; Chakravarty, S. Assessment of Minimum Support Price for Economically Relevant Non-Timber Forest Products of Buxa Tiger Reserve in Foothills of Eastern Himalaya, India. Resources 2025, 14, 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources14060088

AMA Style

Gurung T, Giri A, Nath AJ, Shukla G, Chakravarty S. Assessment of Minimum Support Price for Economically Relevant Non-Timber Forest Products of Buxa Tiger Reserve in Foothills of Eastern Himalaya, India. Resources. 2025; 14(6):88. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources14060088

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gurung, Trishala, Avinash Giri, Arun Jyoti Nath, Gopal Shukla, and Sumit Chakravarty. 2025. "Assessment of Minimum Support Price for Economically Relevant Non-Timber Forest Products of Buxa Tiger Reserve in Foothills of Eastern Himalaya, India" Resources 14, no. 6: 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources14060088

APA Style

Gurung, T., Giri, A., Nath, A. J., Shukla, G., & Chakravarty, S. (2025). Assessment of Minimum Support Price for Economically Relevant Non-Timber Forest Products of Buxa Tiger Reserve in Foothills of Eastern Himalaya, India. Resources, 14(6), 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources14060088

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop